Messages - aelevine

This post may possibly be too late for you if you're already decided, but I wanted to shed some light on your situation since I was actually in the same position as you.

In the end, I ended up selecting Cardozo (no $ for either, btw). Aside from what the poster above wrote, the other thing that needs to be said is that you MUST visit the schools. For me, that was the deciding factor. I really loved 'dozo when I visited. The administration is extremely nice and friendly, the students seemed happy, and the location is really to die for. IMO the same could not be said about hastings.

Nevertheless, I'm a SF native and Hastings has a really terrific reputation in the bay area. If you're not familiar with the bay area legal market, then the thing to know is that rankings do not seem to matter there. I.E: there are plenty of judges who are golden gate law graduates who are very loyal to the school, and the same goes for USF. As I said, Hastings is considered to be a really amazing law school in SF, and I doubt that you'd have trouble finding a job.

In NYC, however, the legal market now is really awful. It's a nightmare getting anything here b/c it's over-saturated with lawyers/bright students from around the WORLD. Not saying that I won't get a job, but it might not a) be in something I really want to do, or b) may not be in NY.

In regards to IP/patent work, cardozo is probably the better choice imo. It's become somewhat of a niche field of study at cardozo, especially as it concerns entertainment law. However, if you're interested in working in silicon valley doing that sort of patent work, the hastings is the better choice. Also, for what it's worth, the professors that i've had so far have been really amazing.

The one final thing I want to emphasize is that 'dozo (and hastings too, minus the jewish part) is packed with very high achievers who selected the school b/c of $, it's location, and for some, b/c it's Jewish. The point, as it concerns you, is that everyone came in predicting amazing grades, and very few ended up with them. It's a very competitive school that will push you to the limits to not get left in the dust.I can promise you that it's not easy street at Hastings, either.

I was recently offered a summer position at a very large PD's office (county), and I am leaning towards accepting. Before I commit, I'm wondering if anyone has had any experience at a PD's office and could shed some light on what an internship would be like, especially for a 1L.

Got a very late start with my apps, and am wondering if it's simply too late in the game to apply. Should I just wait for another cycle, or go ahead now? As far as the schools I'm applying to, they are mid-tier schools, in the 40-80 range (i.e st. johns, brooklyn...)

If both of these girls grow up exactly the same way and have exactly the same grades and LSAT than one will have a huge advantage over the other in terms of UG/Grad admissions and job prospects

I don't like discussing AA that much on the forums because it usually starts a flame and people aren't going to be persuaded from what they initially believe... but just had to post this after I stumbled on the article

I'll answer in a non-flaming way.

It's important to keep in mind that affirmative action is predicated on the idea that black and white students don't grow up in exactly the same way. When you're growing up white, there are some things you just won't have to deal with. For example, your parents probably didn't have to tell you how to interact with the police so as to avoid getting shot. You don't have to worry about being followed around in stores to make sure you won't steal anything. You don't have to worry about every mistake or misjudgment you make reflecting on your race as a whole. I think that Sarah Palin's vice presidential candidacy is an excellent example of this. If she were black and had a pregnant teenage daughter, people would use it as an example of the how irresponsible black people are, but because she's white, it's off limits as a topic of discussion. There are all sorts of subtle privileges that come with growing up white and they add up to a lot in the end. The fact is that most black people in this country are inevitably going to face challenges and obstacles growing up - challenges that wouldn't even occur to white people to consider. And this even goes for blacks and whites of the same social class. I don't see it as at all unreasonable that law schools be cognizant of this when they make their admissions decisions.

And that's related to the second rationale for affirmative action, which has less to do with merit than it does with the educational experience during law school. My constitutional law and criminal procedure classes would have been less interesting had there been no URMs in them because URMs often grow up having very different experiences with the police and criminal justice system than do white students. They often have meaningful insights on cases concerning race in constitutional law classes that white students are less likely to have.

As an Asian American, I have grown up with a lot of advantages and privileges. More people worked harder to make sure I succeeded in school because that's what was expected of me. People assume I'm intelligent and hard working. I'm more socially accepted by white people than I would be if I were black, which in turn gives me more access to valuable networking opportunities than I would have if I were black. That's not to say that I didn't work hard, but it did mean that my hard work was also more likely to be noticed. I'm willing to accept that this translated to my having to work a little harder to get into good schools than a black or Latino student.

That's not to say that there aren't reasonable arguments in opposition to affirmative action. For example, you could argue that its costs with regard to race relations outweigh the benefits to URMs. You could argue that only rich, well-connected URMs actually benefit from it in practice. You could argue that there are bad career consequences for URMs who get into a school for which they're unqualified. And there are definitely plenty of blacks and Latinos out there who, individually, don't merit affirmative action treatment as much as some individual poor whites. But the argument that affirmative action unfairly disadvantages white students who are equally situated with black students has little practical application because there are so few who are equally situated.

I know it's a reach, but according to the ABA, the 25% - 75% lsat is 160 and 167...With a 3.5 gpa from a very good undergrad school, and good softs, do you think there is a decent chance of admittance?With these numbers, do you guys have any other recommendations for decent programs I should look into..I feel like my numbers are too low for good schools and way above for a lot of crappier schools. Thanks for the advice everyone.

Hey everyone. Please excuse me if what i ask is banned material...if it is I will gladly send an apology, etc to whoever, but I think that this question should be kosher.

I took the oct 4th lsat, and am (like many of you) mulling over my performance. I have been thinking about the LG section, in particular the last game, because I guessed on most of the questions due to time constraints, and marked C for the ones that I guessed.

My question is this -- for that last and final game, the complex one about the bus stops, were any of the answers C? I'm not asking which questions were answered by C (if any)...i just simply want to know if the answer C came up at all. Please be confident that you nailed this section of the test before answering, as it wont help me if you were in the same boat as me and guessed.